Japan needs babies.

[AlucardNoir]

Yeah, sorry to tell ya bud, but you really need to stop listening to fascists about the way the world works. It's makin' ya say headass nonsesnse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-America

When even the liberals at Wikipedia give credence to this particular world view I have to wonder what books you've been reading. Cause they sure as heck weren't on geopolitics, realpolitik and history.

[clearspira]

You think that that "London is no longer English" comment is proof because it fits your own bias and that's what you want to hear. Let's be honest here. That's only reason why you believe that to be true.

You are also ignoring fact that not everyone who migrates does so because they want to but because they have to for one reason or other. You also seem to assume worst about them. But I guess you think that they should just suffer and die like animals because they aren't caucasians and don't have same culture. I see that colonial era attitudes are still strong.

By the way that Anglo-Saxon culture that was result of mixture of cultures and English language was formed by mixing language that Saxons spoke with what Normans who conquered England spoke and Latin with modern alphabet that we use having been created in Arab and is thus called Arabic alphabet.

Yeah, I have no reason to take you seriously anymore because you lack sense and you act based on emotion that is fear.

When people say ''London is no longer English'' what they really mean is ''London no longer looks like me boo hoo.''

[clearspira]

You think that that "London is no longer English" comment is proof because it fits your own bias and that's what you want to hear. Let's be honest here. That's only reason why you believe that to be true.

You are also ignoring fact that not everyone who migrates does so because they want to but because they have to for one reason or other. You also seem to assume worst about them. But I guess you think that they should just suffer and die like animals because they aren't caucasians and don't have same culture. I see that colonial era attitudes are still strong.

By the way that Anglo-Saxon culture that was result of mixture of cultures and English language was formed by mixing language that Saxons spoke with what Normans who conquered England spoke and Latin with modern alphabet that we use having been created in Arab and is thus called Arabic alphabet.

Yeah, I have no reason to take you seriously anymore because you lack sense and you act based on emotion that is fear.

IF the only reply for "London is no longer English" is "London is as British as it's ever been" then we have a break in communication. And yes, the english have been historically "white", not that that term was actually used until rather recently. English was what was used, that's why there was so much discrimination in the anglo-saxon US against the Irish, because the Irish were not English, not anglo-saxon, not part of the group. "White" is a race, but here's the thing, outside of the US with it's melting pot wishful dreams, we also have ethnicities and historically those have been the source of much "intra-racial" fighting. Before it was fashionable to look down of the "poor savage", before having different gods was a fashionable excuse for war, fighting your neighbors that spoke a different language and which had different local customs and traditions was the norm. Actually, that kind of intra-racial fighting is what led to the World Wars and the dismantling of the colonial system in the first place. The white Germans and Italians feeling left out by the white English and the white French that had more or less carved the rest of the world for themselves.

Also, just so we're clear, you're accusing me of a colonial attitude when my very argument is one that is by it's very nature against colonialism - namely that every people deserves it's own patch of land to call home? One that is based on the fact that when you mix different cultures and ethnicities you historically end up with tears and bloodshed? As has been the case in eastern Europe where different ethnicities were forced together, as has been the case for the middle east, or Africa, or any other region on the globe where western Europe drew the map with multicultural, multilinguistic, multiethnic countries in mind. Yeah, I must be the greatest colonialist since Columbus.

I just love it when regressive like you just go full McIntosh. The anglo-saxons aren't the result of "the mixture of cultures", they're the result of the repeated brutal conquest of a region by foreign invaders - just like the rest of the world, and every single other culture on the planet right now. They're not the result of some nice and peaceful cohabitation that resulted in the mixture of languages and cultures. They're the result of war, rape and the forced adoption of the victor's cultural and linguistic norms by the vanquished.

Whether it was by peaceful cooperation or war, rape and forced adoption, it is still by its very nature a ''mixture of cultures.'' I don't understand what you mean by that.

What is a ''regressive'' in actual, practical terms? Is that from the same book of meaningless buzzwords as ''SJW''?

[ProfessorDetective]

I hear all of this about 'The foreigners are destroying our culture by not rejecting theirs when they move here' and I think: Who cares? Who cares which culture is dominate? As long as you aren't being forced to give up your heritage, then who cares? What does it matter? Though, even I'll admit, having some programs to help them pick up basic English would be nice, at least for practicality's sake.

Also, that isn't how colonialism works. We aren't being invaded and occupied by a sovereign state, people are abandoning one sovereign state or another out of a desperate need to survive. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of Americans have to do that in October, depending on how that Supreme Court ruling on LGBT+ worker's rights shakes out.

[ProfessorDetective]

You think that that "London is no longer English" comment is proof because it fits your own bias and that's what you want to hear. Let's be honest here. That's only reason why you believe that to be true.

You are also ignoring fact that not everyone who migrates does so because they want to but because they have to for one reason or other. You also seem to assume worst about them. But I guess you think that they should just suffer and die like animals because they aren't caucasians and don't have same culture. I see that colonial era attitudes are still strong.

By the way that Anglo-Saxon culture that was result of mixture of cultures and English language was formed by mixing language that Saxons spoke with what Normans who conquered England spoke and Latin with modern alphabet that we use having been created in Arab and is thus called Arabic alphabet.

Yeah, I have no reason to take you seriously anymore because you lack sense and you act based on emotion that is fear.

IF the only reply for "London is no longer English" is "London is as British as it's ever been" then we have a break in communication. And yes, the english have been historically "white", not that that term was actually used until rather recently. English was what was used, that's why there was so much discrimination in the anglo-saxon US against the Irish, because the Irish were not English, not anglo-saxon, not part of the group. "White" is a race, but here's the thing, outside of the US with it's melting pot wishful dreams, we also have ethnicities and historically those have been the source of much "intra-racial" fighting. Before it was fashionable to look down of the "poor savage", before having different gods was a fashionable excuse for war, fighting your neighbors that spoke a different language and which had different local customs and traditions was the norm. Actually, that kind of intra-racial fighting is what led to the World Wars and the dismantling of the colonial system in the first place. The white Germans and Italians feeling left out by the white English and the white French that had more or less carved the rest of the world for themselves.

Also, just so we're clear, you're accusing me of a colonial attitude when my very argument is one that is by it's very nature against colonialism - namely that every people deserves it's own patch of land to call home? One that is based on the fact that when you mix different cultures and ethnicities you historically end up with tears and bloodshed? As has been the case in eastern Europe where different ethnicities were forced together, as has been the case for the middle east, or Africa, or any other region on the globe where western Europe drew the map with multicultural, multilinguistic, multiethnic countries in mind. Yeah, I must be the greatest colonialist since Columbus.

I just love it when regressive like you just go full McIntosh. The anglo-saxons aren't the result of "the mixture of cultures", they're the result of the repeated brutal conquest of a region by foreign invaders - just like the rest of the world, and every single other culture on the planet right now. They're not the result of some nice and peaceful cohabitation that resulted in the mixture of languages and cultures. They're the result of war, rape and the forced adoption of the victor's cultural and linguistic norms by the vanquished.

Whether it was by peaceful cooperation or war, rape and forced adoption, it is still by its very nature a ''mixture of cultures.'' I don't understand what you mean by that.

What is a ''regressive'' in actual, practical terms? Is that from the same book of meaningless buzzwords as ''SJW''?

Oxford definition: 'becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.'

In this case: a state pre-Civil Rights, where the color of your skin, your type of genitals, or your preference for romantic partners, could dictate if you get to work today and/or eat tonight.

[clearspira]

I hear all of this about 'The foreigners are destroying our culture by not rejecting theirs when they move here' and I think: Who cares? Who cares which culture is dominate? As long as you aren't being forced to give up your heritage, then who cares? What does it matter? Though, even I'll admit, having some programs to help them pick up basic English would be nice, at least for practicality's sake.

Also, that isn't how colonialism works. We aren't being invaded and occupied by a sovereign state, people are abandoning one sovereign state or another out of a desperate need to survive. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of Americans have to do that in October, depending on how that Supreme Court ruling on LGBT+ worker's rights shakes out.

The majority of immigrants are exactly like you and me: they want jobs, they want families, they want to love, they want freedom. The problem is that they are the current ''Other''. They are the one's that you can blame for all of society's ills. Everyone gets their turn to be ''The Other'' at some point - gays, the Irish, blacks, women, white men, Jews, Muslims. Sadly it is such an effective propaganda tool that it will happen forever.

[clearspira]

You think that that "London is no longer English" comment is proof because it fits your own bias and that's what you want to hear. Let's be honest here. That's only reason why you believe that to be true.

You are also ignoring fact that not everyone who migrates does so because they want to but because they have to for one reason or other. You also seem to assume worst about them. But I guess you think that they should just suffer and die like animals because they aren't caucasians and don't have same culture. I see that colonial era attitudes are still strong.

By the way that Anglo-Saxon culture that was result of mixture of cultures and English language was formed by mixing language that Saxons spoke with what Normans who conquered England spoke and Latin with modern alphabet that we use having been created in Arab and is thus called Arabic alphabet.

Yeah, I have no reason to take you seriously anymore because you lack sense and you act based on emotion that is fear.

IF the only reply for "London is no longer English" is "London is as British as it's ever been" then we have a break in communication. And yes, the english have been historically "white", not that that term was actually used until rather recently. English was what was used, that's why there was so much discrimination in the anglo-saxon US against the Irish, because the Irish were not English, not anglo-saxon, not part of the group. "White" is a race, but here's the thing, outside of the US with it's melting pot wishful dreams, we also have ethnicities and historically those have been the source of much "intra-racial" fighting. Before it was fashionable to look down of the "poor savage", before having different gods was a fashionable excuse for war, fighting your neighbors that spoke a different language and which had different local customs and traditions was the norm. Actually, that kind of intra-racial fighting is what led to the World Wars and the dismantling of the colonial system in the first place. The white Germans and Italians feeling left out by the white English and the white French that had more or less carved the rest of the world for themselves.

Also, just so we're clear, you're accusing me of a colonial attitude when my very argument is one that is by it's very nature against colonialism - namely that every people deserves it's own patch of land to call home? One that is based on the fact that when you mix different cultures and ethnicities you historically end up with tears and bloodshed? As has been the case in eastern Europe where different ethnicities were forced together, as has been the case for the middle east, or Africa, or any other region on the globe where western Europe drew the map with multicultural, multilinguistic, multiethnic countries in mind. Yeah, I must be the greatest colonialist since Columbus.

I just love it when regressive like you just go full McIntosh. The anglo-saxons aren't the result of "the mixture of cultures", they're the result of the repeated brutal conquest of a region by foreign invaders - just like the rest of the world, and every single other culture on the planet right now. They're not the result of some nice and peaceful cohabitation that resulted in the mixture of languages and cultures. They're the result of war, rape and the forced adoption of the victor's cultural and linguistic norms by the vanquished.

Whether it was by peaceful cooperation or war, rape and forced adoption, it is still by its very nature a ''mixture of cultures.'' I don't understand what you mean by that.

What is a ''regressive'' in actual, practical terms? Is that from the same book of meaningless buzzwords as ''SJW''?

Oxford definition: 'becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.'

In this case: a state pre-Civil Rights, where the color of your skin, your type of genitals, or your preference for romantic partners, could dictate if you get to work today and/or eat tonight.

Fair enough, but is that how the term ''regressive'' was being used here by referencing Jonathan Mcintosh whose claim to fame is little more than being one of Anita Sarkeesian's mates? I was more interested in knowing what apparently the ''new'' definition of the word is.

[CmdrKing]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-America

When even the liberals at Wikipedia give credence to this particular world view I have to wonder what books you've been reading. Cause they sure as heck weren't on geopolitics, realpolitik and history.

That ain't what you said.
You said "north american anglo-saxon culture"

I mean one post before that you were comparing "Japan loosens up on immigration" to Native American genocide, then claiming North America had an anglo-saxon culture, but okay, we're specifically talking about the US and Canada as outgrowths of British colonies.

Current-day White Americans aren't an anglo-saxon culture, let alone Americans generally. Like, on this website, we have large quantities of reviews of Star Trek, an American production, and Doctor Who, a British one. There are visible differences between the underlying cultural assumptions of each, because the UK followed more or less the same path they were on when the colonies diverged while the US developed a strange love/hate relationship with both immigration and imperialism, and finding the patchworks of where both entered, left, or changed the culture around them is something you can do with most American cultural products (of which there are a lot).

And that's before you remember that for all of the US' existence, between 20 and 25% of the population has been slaves (or later their descendants), and the media and trends of the subculture they've developed routinely go on to shift the course of the larger culture around them.

Even casual exposure to the vast quantity of American cultural export would communicate a lot of that... unless you were also filtering it through the lens of fascists selling you bunk about white genocide. Then you'd just see a bunch of refugees at the southern border (which is ALREADY predominantly non-anglo because the US' southern border is land ceded by Mexico in wars between 170 and 130 years ago, but that requires knowing US history) somehow standing to eliminate "white culture".

[Riedquat]

When people say ''London is no longer English'' what they really mean is ''London no longer looks like me boo hoo.''

The old cop-out of not accepting what someone says at face value because they have to really mean something you find easier to attack instead. And even then you're making an assumption that what you said is an invalid position and something to be sneered at - why? The people in a place, particularly a city, are very much a part of the look and feel of that place, which is what really defines what it is. If something changes then it's up to those pushing the change to justify it. And finally, on the "look" thing the same people who sneer at those who'll say it about London tend to be rather critical of historical images of white English people swanning around the Raj, or more modern images of bits of Spain being turned into the Costa del Brighton and what that's done to those places.

[TGLS]

Fair enough, but is that how the term ''regressive'' was being used here by referencing Jonathan Mcintosh whose claim to fame is little more than being one of Anita Sarkeesian's mates? I was more interested in knowing what apparently the ''new'' definition of the word is.

OK, there are 2 kinds of regressive lefts. The first is the kind Maajid Nawaz, Maher, Dawkins, and Harris use to attack leftists who are overly tolerant of Islamism, anti-free speech, or other liberal values. The other is when a conservative wants to attack someone as an SJW but think SJW is not a cool insult anymore.